Hello, all, I've reread the JEP 443, https://cr.openjdk.org/~abimpoudis/unnamed/jep443-20230322/specs/unnamed-jls.html
First, a minor nit, at the end of the section 14.30.1, there is this sentence that reference the section 14.30.1 ! "An unnamed pattern is always null-matching (14.30.1)." My brain, stackoverflowed on that :) And now a question, with the introduction of the unnamed pattern, in a switch, "case _" and "case null, default" have the same semantics, given that "case null, default" is a kind of a hack, should we still allow it ? regards, Rémi
